Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Saturday 05 May 2007 12:51 am, Greg London wrote:
> >> If the work qualifies in some way for a
> >> "compulsory license", then someone could sell the
> >> work and pay you money because the work is still
> >> a normal copyrighted work, it's just got some
> >> rights that have been licensed around. But it still
> >> qualifies for a compulsory license.
> >
> > Whoa...I'm not too sure about this line of thinking.
> > NC music *does* qualify for compulsory licensing, so
> > isn't this like saying BMG can sell a Warner music
> > track without permission just by paying the compulsory
> > license fee, even though the copyright belongs to
> > Warner?
>
> A "compulsory license" has nothign to do with
> Creative COmmons. 

It does in that if the work falls under the conditions required to assert the 
license, the person choosing the statutory license can override the 
intentions of the person using the CC license.

> It is a part of copyright law. 

Correct and so it has nothing to do with CC in the way that you mean. It is 
not a CC creation and CC can do nothing about it.

> I believe it only applies to songs. 

That is where I have heard of it and only for non-dramatic music. (Can anyone 
give us a brief axplanation of that?)

> The law basically 
> says that someone can perform a cover of a song
> by paying some fixed amount of money or percentage
> or something. And the original artist cannot refuse.

And there are twice yearly reporting requirements as well.
>
> That's why it's called compulsory. Permission is
> mandated by law for a fixed prices. The idea being
> that no one can prevent someone from covering a song
> as long as they get paid the standard amount, or
> something to that effect.

Basicall yes, that's what I have in my head as well. Supposedly to prevent 
monopoly plays. I find this interesting in the case of BY-SA as it allows 
people to sidestep sharing games specifically to play monopoly games.
>
> This only applies to music, as far as I know.
>
> It's been a while since I read into it, so I'm
> a little fuzzy on exactly how the specifics work.
>
> But the gist is that you can record a song
> and someone can make a cover version of
> it even if you don't want them to, by paying
> the standard percentage. And you are legally
> required to grant them a compulsory license
> for the cover.

The song has to have been published or previously recorded or something like 
that though.
>
> Compulsory licenses only apply to covers of songs.
> They do not apply to samples. They do not apply
> to books, or paintings, or anything else, as
> far as I remember.
>
> But for a song, even if it's licensed all rights
> reserved, the law says you can't prohibit someone
> from covering your song if they pay the money.
>
Sounds about right if my memory and initial understanding are up to snuff.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)